Bioenergy a Carbon Accounting Time Bomb FINAL

8/14/2019 Bioenergy a Carbon Accounting Time Bomb FINAL

1/12

Bioenergya carbon accounting

time bomb


2/12

Background:a carbon accounting time bomb3

4

7

10 Conclusionsand solutions

AndyHay(rspb-images.com)

Carbon debt of woody biomass

Carbon launderingbiofuels and indirect land use change


3/12

The European Union (EU) established a 20% target for renewable energy use by 2020 and a 10%target for renewables in the transport sector by 2020. Bioenergy, including solid biomass and waste,

is expected to represent 60% of the EUs renewable energy use and biofuels is expected to cover

most of the 10% renewable energy use in transport. Widely perceived as carbon neutral, new studies

reveal that these policies could be increasing emissions compared to fossil fuels.

Two studies commissioned by BirdLife International, EEB, and T&E show that Europe has a major

carbon accounting problem, threatening the credibility of two flagship EU environmental policies:

the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and the Emissions Trading Scheme. Under EU accounting rules,

burning bioenergy is considered to be carbon neutral despite the release of significant greenhouse

gas (GHG) emissions in the short-medium term, turning bioenergy into a misguided policy toolfor achieving emissions reductions. The best available scientific evidence shows that the carbon

costs of many bioenergy options are high. Bioenergy causes losses of carbon to the atmosphere

from vegetation and soils when biomass is harvested. And biofuels cause losses of carbon to the

atmosphere when land is converted - either directly or indirectly - to meet the increased demand for

agricultural crops.

Two principle gaps exist in the current accounting scheme for GHG emissions from bioenergy and

biofuels, one temporal and one spatial in nature:

Carbon debt.Harvesting forest biomass and associated management changes and conversion

of land, releases immediate and significant GHG emissions - creating a carbon debt - that can take

decades or even centuries to repay through recapture in soils and vegetation. The time element is

ignored under EU law, which means that carbon reductions on paper in 2020 do not correspond

to what is happening in reality.

Carbon laundering.For the purpose of reporting under the UNFCCC, emissions from burning

biomass are allocated to the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector, not the

energy sector. Those emissions, however, are not always accounted for in countries reduction

obligations since countries can opt not to include emissions from forest management. In

addition, the accounting system under the Kyoto Protocol counts only those emissions occurring

in Annex 1 countries1, allowing emissions from a decrease in forest stocks in non Annex-I

countries to be excluded. This means that when non-Annex 1 countries export biomass to Annex

1 countries, not only are the emissions from harvesting not accounted for, but neither are the

emissions that occur when the biomass is burned. This accounting gap is only partially solved

by the RED sustainability criteria which only calculate the emissions related to direct land use

change. Indirect land use change (ILUC) is still being ignored.

While both studies presented here concentrate on carbon, it must be noted that other environmental

impacts, such as loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, are also significant and must be

considered in policy decisions on bioenergy and biofuels.

Background:a carbon accounting time bomb

B i o en er g y a c a r b o n a c c o u n t i n g t i m e b o m b 3

1. Annex 1 countries are those that have an emission reduction obligation under the Kyoto Protocol (i.e. the industrializedcountries) .


4/12

This study suggests that while

recovering waste biomass can

have short term emission reduction

benefits, increasing the harvesting

of standing forests will mostly lead

to worsening of the climate crisis-

and that is before even starting

to look at other impacts such

as biodiversity loss or increased

erosion.

Carbon debtof woody biomass

The carbon debt created

when woody biomass is

burned takes centuries

to pay off. The result isthat biomass can be more

harmful to the climate than

the fossil fuel it replaces.

B i o en er g y a c a r b o n a c c o u n t i n g t i m e b o m b4

This section is based on the following report:

Bird N., Pena N. & Zanchi J., The upfront carbon

debt of bioenergy, Graz, Joanneum Research,

June 2010. An electronic version of the report

can be found at: http://www.birdlife.org/eu/

EU_policy/Biofuels/carbon_bomb.html


5/12

The European Commission - DG Energy - estimates

that bioenergy demand in 2020 will require 195 Mtoe2

of biomass. Energy generation from solid biomass and

biowaste will be 58% of the total renewable energy

generation in 2020 (140 Mtoe of 240 Mtoe), covering

12% of the gross energy demand. Although quantifying

emissions is scientifically possible, no full assessment was

performed to determine the GHG implications of the EU-

RED policy. This study focuses on filling a critical gap in

these assessments.

In this study, emissions are quantified through a so-calledCarbon Neutrality (CN) factor. The factor is defined as the

ratio between the net reduction or increase of carbon

emissions in the bioenergy system and the carbon

emissions from the substituted fossil fuel system - the

fossil fuel comparator - over a period of time. Because

initial emissions from bioenergy and biofuels can be

higher than those from fossil fuels due to lower efficiency

and land-based carbon stocks changes, bioenergy only

starts to deliver atmospheric benefits after the passage of

time. The turning point occurs when recovery of carbonstocks equals the cumulative fossil fuel emissions avoided

by use of biomass. The study looks at the carbon stock

emissions, addressing an area that has been largely

ignored in previous studies. It does not examine other

sources of emissions, such as transport and processing,

because those impacts have been analysed and

quantified elsewhere.

The study revealed that biomass for bioenergy can have

variable climate mitigation potentials, depending on the

timeframe considered and the source of the biomass. This

can be calculated by assessing the development of the

carbon neutrality factor (CNC) over time:

Additional logging for bioenergy can produce a

decrease of the overall carbon stock in managed

forests, which will significantly affect the GHG balance

of the bioenergy system. In the short-medium term

(20-50 years), additional felling3 could emit more

B i o en er g y a c a r b o n a c c o u n t i n g t i m e b o m b 5

2. Million tons of oil equivalent3. Calculation based on additional harvesting taking place in a rotation forest in Austria of 60 ha. In a 60 year rotation period, 1 ha of

forest is cut each year.


6/12

6

carbon than a fossil-fuel system (CN


7/12

7

The scientific evidence is growing

that most current biofuels have very

poor greenhouse gas performance

and the majority are actually worse

for the climate than the fossil fuels

they replace.

Carbonlaunderingbiofuels and indirectland use change

Growing biofuels on

agricultural land results in

the conversion of forests

and other natural areas intocropland to replace those

agricultural lands lost to

biofuels production. This

results in related emissions

that can completely negate

any climate benefits.

This section is based on the following report:

Bergsma G. C., Croezen H. J., Otten M. B. J. &

van Valkengoed M.P.J., Biofuels: indirect land use

change and climate impact, Delft, CE Delft, June

2010. An electronic version of the report can be

found at: http://www.birdlife.org/eu/EU_policy/

Biofuels/carbon_bomb.html

B i o en er g y a c a r b o n a c c o u n t i n g t i m e b o m b


8/12

The conventional thinking is that biofuels have a carbon

benefit, displacing fossil fuels and associated emissions.Biofuels and fossil fuels used in vehicles have, however,

comparable tailpipe emissions. Any carbon savings

therefore come from the assumption that biofuels

feedstocks are carbon neutral: emitting the same

amount of carbon as was sequestered during cultivation.

This assumption overlooks the fact that carbon would

have been absorbed by vegetation on the land. This

is exacerbated by the conversion of forests and other

natural areas into agricultural land, leading to a reduction

in its carbon stock from forest to cornfield, for example.Forests and natural areas also absorb and accumulate

carbon over time, which annual or perennial cropping

does not. Therefore, to assess GHG implications from

transitioning from fossil fuels to biofuels, it is essential

to account for land use and land conversion. Land

use changes can be both direct when a forest itself

is converted to cropland for biofuels feedstocks, and

indirect when current agricultural land is used for biofuels

production, which means that existing crop production

moves into natural areas. See Figure 2.

Figure 2: Schematic representation of indirect land usechange mechanism. Agricultural land currently used forfood production is taken for biofuels feedstock and food

production is displaced into newly cleared land. Whennatural habitats such as forests and grasslands are convertedto agriculture, their carbon stock is lost. These emissions canoften be greater than those caused by burning fossil fuel.Thus producing the same amount of energy as the biofuelstriggering the displacement.

8

Baseline scenario Scenario with increased

biofuels use

Nature

Agri for food Agri for food

Displacedproduction

Biofuels

Nature



9/12

Indirect land-use change (ILUC) has been the subject of a significant number of studies. Some of these

studies have estimated emissions on the basis of agro-economic models, whilst others have taken a riskbased approach, which serve as a worst-case scenario. A review by CE Delft shows that, under a risk-based

approach, the estimated 70 million tonnes of CO2reductions under EUs biofuel policy are dwarfed by the

270 million tonnes of CO2emissions from land-use change. Even under more conservative agro-economic

models, ILUC would result in 70 million tonnes of CO2emissions, resulting in no net carbon benefit.

Figure 3 The graph shows the results of different ILUC models and how their results for emissions from biofuelscompare to the thresholds set by the Renewable Energy Directive. The graph demonstrates that, when indirectland use change effects have been added to the default GHG savings of biofuels, only sugar cane ethanol and

waste biofuels still meet the 35% and 50% thresholds for GHG reductions from biofuels use that apply under theRenewable Energy Directive (RED). Other biofuels result either in no GHG savings or even in net emissions increasecompared to petrol and diesel.

According to the study, ILUC effects can be partially mitigated by ensuring additional carbon growth, such

as increasing yields or increasing productivity of abandoned or degraded lands in a sustainable way without

damaging biodiversity. It can also be avoided by using waste products as biofuels where no land is required

to produce it and it does not conflict with more efficient uses, such as a soil improver. Strong policies are

needed, however, in order to guide the right decisions of the companies.

9

0%

50%

-50%

100%

-100%

HFOpalm

wasteoilbiodiesel

palmo

ilbiodiesel

sunflowerbiodiesel

soybeanbiodiesel

rapeseedbiodiesel

2ndgenethanol,residues

sugarcaneethanol

maizeethanol

wheatethanol

sugarbeetethanol

FTdiesel,residues

AGLINK (ILUC model)

IIASA (ILUC model)

IFPRI BAU (ILUC model) default reduction RED *LCFS II (ILUC model)

RFS II (ILUC model)

IFPRI FT (ILUC model) RED 2017 minimum saving requirement

current RED minimum saving requirement

* default values set for the GHG reductions from biofuels that does not include ILUC.



10/12

The financial crisis has taught us that

basing policy on rigged accounting is

not a good idea; this is as true for carbon

accounting as for financial accounting.

10

Conclusionsand solutions

Bioenergy and biofuels can

still contribute to climate

change mitigation, but only

if we use technologies andfeedstocks that truly deliver

timely savings. Honest

accounting is the critical

first step.



11/12

These two studies have revealed that unless a number of urgent measures are taken, the EUs renewable

energy policy, an EU flagship policy to combat climate change, is very likely to lead to an increase in carbon

emissions. For it to remain a flagship of EU climate policy, a growth in renewable capacities will need to

be coupled with strong policies to increase energy efficiency and reduce demand. The development of

renewable energy capacities will need to take full account of the physical limits the environment poses.

At present, the European Commission is preparing an assessment of the ILUC effect of biofuels policy and a

proposal for tackling the problem. Without proper accounting of ILUC emissions, the use of biofuels is likely

to undermine the EUs efforts to tackle climate change.

In the short term, according to the study, the only viable policy measure to ensure emission savings is

the application of an ILUC factor. Such an ILUC factor would correct the overestimated climate benefits for

biofuels, taking into account all land-use-based emissions, including those caused by displacement. The

actual values are already calculable for most common feedstocks, and others may rely upon a default factor

of 60 g CO2/MJ until actual values can be determined. The default value can be reduced or removed when

evidence is provided that the feedstock does not use land - waste and residues - or results from increased

crop yields.

The situation regarding biomass for energy is more problematic because the European Commission has

recently decided against developing legally binding sustainability criteria before 2011 at the very earliest. It is

vital that the European Commission reverses this decision and puts in place robust mandatory sustainability

standards including minimum thresholds for greenhouse gas savings.

Given the urgent need to reduce GHG emissions in the short-term i.e. the next 10 to 40 years, only biomass

that delivers positive GHG gains compared to fossil fuels over a 20-year period should be allowed to

qualify for meeting the 20% renewables target. In practical terms, this means limiting bioenergy to certain

feedstocks, such as certain waste streams where this does not compete with other uses, new plantations

on abandoned land with little biodiversity value, or carefully managed systems in which proven increased

growth is stimulated by forest management.

Getting the carbon accounting right is absolutely crucial. However, it is far from the full story. Bio-

energy production can have very severe impacts on biodiversity, water and other natural resources

and on vulnerable human populations. Comprehensive, watertight, legally binding and well

implemented sustainability standards are absolutely vital in order to ensure that bio-energy can

truly live up to its promise of being green energy.

11B i o en er g y a c a r b o n a c c o u n t i n g t i m e b o m b


12/12

European Environmental Bureau EEB

The EEB is a federation of more than 140 environmental citizens organisations based in all EU Member States and most

Accession Countries, as well as in a few neighbouring countries. These organisations range from local and national, to European

and international. The aim of the EEB is to protect and improve the environment of Europe and to enable the citizens of Europe

to play their part in achieving that goal.

E- mail: [email protected] - http://www.eeb.org/

BirdLife International

BirdLife International is a global Partnership of conservation organizations that strives to conserve birds, their habitats and

global biodiversity, working with people towards sustainability in the use of natural resources. The BirdLife Partnership operates

in more than 100 countries and territories wor ldwide. BirdLife International is represented in 42 countries in Europe and is active

in all EU Member States.

E-mail: [email protected] - http://europe.birdlife.org

Transport Environment T&E

T&E is an independent pan-European association with scientific and educational aims, with no party political affiliation and

devoid of any profit making motive. T&Es mission is to promote a policy of transport and accessibility, based on the principles

of sustainable development, which minimises negative impacts on the environment and health, use of energy and land and all

economic and social costs, maximises safety, and guarantees sufficient access for all. Established in 1990, T&E represents around 50

organisations across Europe, mostly environmental groups and sustainable transpor t campaigners.

E-mail: [email protected] - http://www.transportenvironment.org

BirdLifeInternational

Published:June2010

LicenceDK/11/1

Printed

onE

UE

colabelcertified

paper-

Copyinga

nd

graphicpaper

This publication is part-financed by the European Union

The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility

of BirdLife International and can under no circumstances be

This report has been

produced with the

financial support of the

designby:w

ww.studiostraid.be

Studies used as basis for this repor t:

Bird N., Pena N. & Zanchi J., The upfront carbon debt of bioenergy, Graz, Joanneum Research, June 2010 can be found at: http://www.birdlife.org/eu/

EU_policy/Biofuels/carbon_bomb.html

Bergsma G. C., Croezen H. J., Otten M. B. J. & van Valkengoed M.P.J., Biofuels: indirect land use change and climate impact, Delft, CE Delft, June 2010 can be

found at: http://www.birdlife.org/eu/EU_policy/Biofuels/carbon_bomb.html

Credits pictures:

Front cover: Burung Indonesia - Eka TresnawanPage 2: a. Anonymous

Page 2: b. Innofor.fi

Page 2: c. Steve Wilson

Page 4: Anonymous

Page 5: a. Anonymous

Page 5: b. Stig Bjrk

Page 7: Burung Indonesia - Eka Tresnawan

Page 8: a. Greenpeace - Vinai Dithajohn

Page 8: b. Greenpeace - Dmitri Sharomov

P 10 T R bij

Bioenergy a Carbon Accounting Time Bomb FINAL

Documents

Transcript of Bioenergy a Carbon Accounting Time Bomb FINAL